>
>
> Driven out? Sorry Ross, that's crap, imo. Crap meaning unfair,
> immoral and
> possibly illegal. I will fight very hard to maintain my right to
> work with
> Swerve.Org. I've been planning it's launch for 4 years now. Grandfather
> clauses for existing .org holders must be honoured. I will consider the
> idea that implementing restrictions on future registrants as a possible
> compromise.
>
>
Perhaps driven out is too strong a word, but the commercial interest do have
.com. Grandfathering is important tho'
> I don't think so. Icann or whoever was running the ship when Netsol or
> Internic allowed .orgs to be registered by whoever is ultimately
> responsible. They should have forced Netsol to keep the tld
> restricted. It
> is very irresponsible to consider forcing people out years and
> years later.
> It undermines the work of possibly tens of thousands or hundreds of
> thousands of individuals, orgs, corps, groups etc who may not fit into the
> new mold.
I think it was NSI who operated under their NSF agreement at the time.
>
> > Nah, the obvious solution is to work within the ICANN process to effect
> > positive change within .org for those that are currently using
> it properly.
>
> Using it properly? According to who? For all intensive purposes,
> regardless
> of the charter, it is a tld with unrestricted use. Forcing out
> thousands or
> tens of thousands of people is a terrible direction to go in.
I meant "currently", not "properly". Where'd that come from...<checking
under keyboard>
>
> If people want a specific tld for "non-profit" use or individual use or
> whatever, they should be as clear as possible about what they are talking
> about, and come up with a new .tld for this.
Or they can start enforcing the original charter for .org...there are no
absolutes here and as I mentioned, they have a long way before the
conjecture of the last 24 hours becomes policy.
>
> Unfortunately, Icann once again comes across looking very arrogant,
> insensitive and incompetent with statements that they make.
>
> On an important side note, who ultimately controls Icann? It
> definitely is
> not democratic, and for such an important organization, i would
> expect it to
> be.
They are beholden to DOC ultimately.
>
> Swerve
> > -rwr
> >
> >
>
